[General] research papers

Wolfgang Baer wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Sep 15 21:22:09 PDT 2015


Albrecht:

I've been studying your web site and would like a hard copy so I can get 
to an easier chair

The requested URL /pdf/main.pdf was not found on this server.

It looks like a great site and summarizes everything you've been talking 
about

best
wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 9/14/2015 12:45 PM, Dr. Albrecht Giese wrote:
> John,
>
> You wrote a long text, so I will enter my answers within your text.
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 02:54 schrieb John Macken:
>>
>> Hello David and Albrecht,
>>
>> It was through the contact with this group that I was finally able to 
>> understand the disconnect that existed between my idea of vacuum 
>> energy and the picture that others were obtaining from my use of the 
>> term “energy”.   Many of the mysteries of quantum mechanics and 
>> general relativity can be traced to the fact that fields exist and 
>> yet we do not have a clear idea of what they are.  My answer is that 
>> we live within a sea of vacuum activity which is the physical basis 
>> of the mysterious fields. I combine all fields into a single 
>> “spacetime field” which is the basis of all particles, fields and 
>> forces.
>>
>> *David*, you asked about the wordsquantum, quantifying and 
>> quantizing. I did a word search and I did not use the word 
>> “quantizing” in either the email or the attachment to my last post.  
>> However, the paper /Energetic Spacetime: The New Aether/ submitted to 
>> SPIE as part of the conference presentation, used and defines the 
>> word “quantization”. This paper was attached to previous posts, and 
>> is available at my website: http://onlyspacetime.com/
>>
>> *Albrecht*:  I can combine my answer to you with the clarification 
>> for David of the word “quantify” and its derivatives.  I claim that 
>> my model of the universe “quantifies” particles and fields.  I will 
>> start my explanation of this concept by giving examples of models 
>> which do not “quantify” particles and fields. There have been 
>> numerous particle models from this group and others which show an 
>> electron model as two balls orbiting around a center of mass.  Most 
>> of the group identifies these balls as photons but Albrecht names the 
>> two balls “charges of the strong force”.  Both photons and charges of 
>> strong force are just words. To be quantifiable, it is necessary to 
>> describe the model of the universe which gives the strong force or 
>> the electromagnetic force.  What exactly are these? How much energy 
>> and energy density does one charge of strong force have? Can a photon 
>> occupy a volume smaller than a reduced Compton wavelength in radius? 
>> Does a muon have the same basic strong force charge but just rotate 
>> faster? Are the charges of strong force or photons made of any other 
>> more basic component?
>>
>
> Regarding charge: This is a basic entity in my model. At some point a 
> physical theory has to start. My model starts with the assumption that 
> a charge is an "atomic" entity, so possibly point-like, which emits 
> exchange particles (in this point I follow the general understanding 
> of QM). There are two types of charges: the electric ones which we are 
> very familiar with, having two signs, and the strong ones, which are 
> not so obvious in everyday physics; they also have two signs. In the 
> physical nature we find the charges of the strong force only in 
> configurations made of those different signs, never isolated. This is 
> in contrast to the electric charges.
>
> The basic particles are composed of a collection of charges of the 
> strong force so that both basic particles are bound to each other in a 
> way that they keep a certain distance. This distance characterizes an 
> elementary particle. In several (or most) cases there is additionally 
> an electric charge in the basic particle.
>
> The two parameters I have to set - or to find - are the shape of the 
> strong field in the elementary particle. Here I have defined an 
> equation describing a minimum multi-pole field to make the elementary 
> particle stable. The other setting is the strength of this field. This 
> strength can be found e.g. using the electron because the electron is 
> well known and precisely measured. This field is then applicable for 
> all leptons as well as for all quarks. It is also applicable for the 
> photon with the restriction that there may be a correction factor 
> caused by the fact that the photon is not fundamental in the sense of 
> this model but composed of (maybe) two other particles.
>
> The size of the photon is (at least roughly) described by its 
> wavelength. This follows from the mass formula resulting from my 
> model, as with this assumption the (dynamic) mass of the photon is the 
> correct result.
>
> As I wrote, the results of this model are very precise, the prove is 
> in practice only limited by limitations of the measurement processes.
>>
>> I could go on with more questions until it is possible to calculate 
>> the properties of an electron from the answers.  So far both models 
>> lack any quantifiable details except perhaps a connection to the 
>> particle’s Compton frequency.  I am not demanding anything more than 
>> I have already done.  For example, I cannot calculate the electron’s 
>> Compton frequency or the fine structure constant.  However, once I 
>> install these into the model that I create, and combine this with the 
>> properties of the spacetime field, then I get an electron.  
>> Installing a muon’s Compton frequency generates a muon with the 
>> correct electric field, electrostatic force, curvature of spacetime, 
>> gravitational force and de Broglie waves.  I am able to quantify the 
>> distortion of spacetime produced by a charged particle, an electric 
>> field and a photon.  I am able to test these models and show that 
>> they generate both the correct energy density and generate a black 
>> hole when we reach the distortion limits of the spacetime field.
>>
> In my model the Compton frequency of the electron (and of the other 
> leptons) follows directly from the size of the particle and the fact 
> that the basic particle move with c. The fine structure constant tells 
> us the relation of the electric force to the strong force. This 
> explanation follows very directly from this model, however was also 
> found by other theorists using algebra of particle physics.
>
> Another result of the model is that Planck's constant - multiplied by 
> c - is the field constant of the strong force. Also this is the result 
> of other models (however not of mainstream physics).
>>
>> My model starts with a quantifiable description of the properties of 
>> spacetime. The spacetime model has a specific impedance which 
>> describes the properties of waves that can exist in spacetime. Then 
>> the amplitude and frequency of the waves in spacetime is quantified.  
>> This combination allows the energy density of spacetime to be 
>> calculated and this agrees with the energy density of zero point 
>> energy. The particle models are then defined as ½ ħunits of quantized 
>> angular momentum existing in the spacetime field.  This model is 
>> quantifiable as to size, structure, energy, etc. Also the fact that 
>> the rate of time and proper volume is being modulated, it is possible 
>> to calculate the effect that such a structure would have on the 
>> surrounding volume of spacetime.  It is possible to calculate the 
>> effect if the spacetime-based particle model would have if the 
>> coupling constant was equal to 1 (Planck charge), To get charge /e/, 
>> it is necessary to manually install the fine structure constant.
>>
> How do you get the value ½ ħ for the angular momentum? What is the 
> calculation behind it? - I understand that in your model the electric 
> charge is a parameter deduced from other facts. Which ones? From 
> alpha? How do you then get alpha?
>
> I personally have in so far a problem with all considerations using 
> spacetime as I have quite thoroughly investigated how Einstein came to 
> the idea of this 4-dimentional construct. His main motivation was that 
> he wanted in any case to avoid an ether. And in his discussions with 
> Ernst Mach he had to realize that he was running into a lot of 
> problems with this assumption. He could solve these problems in 
> general by his "curved spacetime". But this concept still causes 
> logical conflicts which are eagerly neglected by the followers of 
> Einstein's relativity (and which do not exist in the Lorentzian way of 
> relativity).
>>
>> The quantifiable properties of spacetime imply that there should be 
>> boundary conditions which imply that the waves in spacetime should be 
>> nonlinear.  When the nonlinear component is calculated and treated as 
>> separate waves, the characteristics of the particle’s gravitational 
>> field are obtained (correct:  curvature, effect on the rate of time, 
>> force and energy density).
>>
>> In my last post I have given an answer about the factor of 10^120 
>> difference between the observable energy density of the universe and 
>> the non-observable energy of the universe. This non-observable energy 
>> density is absolutely necessary for QED calculations, zero point 
>> energy, the uncertainty principle, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission 
>> and quantum mechanics in general. This non-observable energy density 
>> is responsible for the tremendously large impedance of spacetime c^3 
>> /G. Since I can also show how this non-observable energy density is 
>> obtainable from gravitational wave equations, it is necessary for 
>> *you* to show how all these effects can be achieved without spacetime 
>> being a single field with this non-observable energy density.  In 
>> fact, the name non-observable only applied to direct observation. The 
>> indirect evidence is everywhere.  It forms the basis of the universe 
>> and therefore is the “background noise” of the universe.  For this 
>> reason it is not directly observable because we can only detect 
>> differences in energy.  The constants /c,/ /G/, /ħ/and /ε_o / testify 
>> that spacetime is not an empty void.
>>
> Up to now I did not find any necessity for zero-point energy. And I 
> find it a dangerous way to assume physical facts which cannot be 
> observed. The greatest argument in favour of this energy is its use in 
> Feynman diagrams. But is there really no other way? I have a lecture 
> of Feynman here where he states that his formalism has good results. 
> But that he has no physical understanding why it is successful. In my 
> understanding of the development of physics this is a weak point.
>
> The discrepancy of 10^120 between assumed and observed energy is taken 
> as a great and unresolved problem by present main stream physics. 
> Those representatives would have all reason to find a solution to keep 
> present QM clean. But they are not able to. This causes me some concern.
>
> The constants you have listed: c is the speed of light what ever the 
> reason for it is. (I have a model, but it is a bit speculative.) But 
> it has nothing to do with energy. G is the gravitational constant 
> which is as little understood as gravity itself. Planck's constant I 
> have explained, it is (with c) the field constant of the strong force 
> (any force has to be described by a field constant); and /ε_o / is the 
> field constant of the electric force with a similar background.
>>
>> If spacetime was an empty void, why should particles have a speed 
>> limit of /c/? For a thought experiment, suppose that two spaceships 
>> leave earth going opposite directions and accelerate until they reach 
>> a speed of 0.75 /c/ relative to the earth.  The earth bound observer 
>> sees them separating at 1.5 /c/ but the rules of relativistic 
>> addition of velocity has a spaceship observer seeing the other 
>> spaceship moving away at only 0.96 /c/.  How is this possible if 
>> spacetime is an empty void.  My model of the universe answers this 
>> because all particles, fields and forces are also made of the 
>> spacetime field and they combine to achieve Lorentz transformations 
>> which affects ruler length and clocks.  None of this can happen 
>> unless spacetime is filled with dipole waves in spacetime and 
>> everything is made of the single component.  The universe is only 
>> spacetime.
>>
> If two spaceships move at 0.75 c in opposite direction, the observer 
> at rest may add these speeds and may get 1.5 c as a result. Why not? 
> If an observer in one of the spaceships measures the relative speed of 
> the other spaceship, the result will be less then c (as you write it). 
> The reason is the well known fact that the measurement tools 
> accessible for the observer in the ship are changed and run 
> differently at this high speed. The reason for these changes is for 
> time dilation the internal speed c in elementary particles. For 
> contraction it is the contraction of fields at motion which is a fact 
> independent of relativity (and which was already known before 
> Einstein). In addition when the speed of another object is to be 
> measured several clocks are to be used positioned along the 
> measurement section. These clocks are de-synchronized in relation to 
> the clocks of the observer at rest. These phenomena together cause the 
> measurement result < c. You find these considerations in papers and 
> books about the Lorentzian interpretation of relativity. So, following 
> Lorentz, there is no reason to assume Einstein's spacetime.
>>
>> John M.
>>
> Perhaps I should read your book. But that chould take a lot of time, I 
> am afraid.
>
> Albrecht
>>
>> *From:*Dr. Albrecht Giese [mailto:genmail at a-giese.de]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:43 PM
>> *To:* John Macken <john at macken.com>; 'Nature of Light and Particles - 
>> General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> great that you have looked so deeply into the model which I have 
>> presented. Thank you.
>>
>> There are some questions which I can answer quite easily. I think 
>> that this model in fact explains several points just in contrast to 
>> main stream physics. In standard physics the electron (just as an 
>> example) is a point-like object without any internal structure. So, 
>> how can a magnetic moment be explained? How can the spin be 
>> explained? How can the mass be explained? The position of main stream 
>> physics is: That cannot be explained but is subject to quantum 
>> mechanics. And the fact that it cannot be explained shows how 
>> necessary QM is.
>>
>> In contrast, if the electron is assumed to have a structure like in 
>> the model presented, these parameters can be explained in a classical 
>> way, and this explanation is not merely a qualitative one but has 
>> precise quantitative results.
>>
>> To  your questions in detail:
>> The fact of two basic particles is necessary to explain the fact of 
>> an oscillation and to fulfil the conservation of momentum. A single 
>> object (as point-like) cannot oscillate. The basic particles are 
>> composed of charges of the strong force. In this model the strong 
>> force is assumed to be the universal force in our world effective on 
>> all particles. A charge is a fundamental object in the scope of this 
>> model. There are two kinds of charges according to the two kinds of 
>> forces in our world, the strong one and the electric one. The weak 
>> force is in fact the strong force but has a smaller coupling constant 
>> caused by geometric circumstances. And gravity is not a force at all 
>> but a refraction process, which is so a side effect of the other 
>> forces. And, by the way, gravity is not curved spacetime. This is not 
>> necessary, and besides of this, Einstein's spacetime leads to logical 
>> conflicts.
>>
>> The forces (i.e. strong force) inside an elementary particle are 
>> configured in a way that at a certain distance there is a potential 
>> minimum and in this way the distance between the basic particles is 
>> enforced. So, this field has attracting and repulsive components. 
>> Outside the elementary particle the attracting forces dominate to 
>> make the particle a stable one. And those field parts outside have an 
>> opposite sign. Now, as the basic particles are orbiting each other, 
>> the outside field is an alternating field (of the strong forth). If 
>> this field propagates, it is builds a wave. This wave is described by 
>> the Schrödinger equation and fulfils the assumptions of de Broglie.
>>
>> With the assumption of two basic particles orbiting at c and subject 
>> to strong force, the parameters mass, magnetic moment, spin result 
>> from it numerically correctly without further assumptions.
>>
>> This model does not need any vacuum energy or virtual particles. 
>> Those are simply not necessary and they are anyway very speculative 
>> because not directly observable. And in the case of the vacuum energy 
>> of the universe we are confronted with the discrepancy of 10^120 
>> which you also mention in your paper attached to your mail.
>>
>> The Coulomb law can be easily explained by the assumption (standard 
>> at quantum mechanics) that a force is realized by exchange particles. 
>> The density of exchange particles and so the strength of the field 
>> diminishes by 1/r^2, which is simple geometry.
>>
>> So John, this is my position. Now I am curious about your objections 
>> of further questions.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Albrecht
>>
>> Am 11.09.2015 um 23:51 schrieb John Macken:
>>
>>     Hello Albrecht and All,
>>
>>     I have attached a one page addition that I will make to my book.
>>     It is a preliminary explanation of my model of the spacetime
>>     field.  It has been very helpful to me to interact with this
>>     group because I now understand better the key stumbling block for
>>     some scientists to accept my thesis.  Therefore I have written
>>     the attached introduction to ease the reader of my book into my
>>     model.
>>
>>     *Albrecht:*  I appreciate your email.  We agree on several points
>>     which include the size of the electron and there is a similarity
>>     in the explanation of gravity.  The key points of disagreement
>>     are the same as I have with the rest of the group.  Your
>>     explanation of a fundamental particle is not really an
>>     explanation. You substitute a fundamental particle such as an
>>     electron with two “basic particles”.  Have we made any progress
>>     or did we just double the problem?  What is your basic particles
>>     made of?  What is the physics behind the force of attraction
>>     between the particles? What is the physics behind an electric
>>     field? How does your model create de Broglie waves? How does your
>>     model create a gravitational field (curved spacetime)?  Can you
>>     derive the Coulomb law and Newtonian gravitational equation from
>>     your model?
>>
>>     These might seem like unfair questions, but my model does all of
>>     these things. All it requires is the reader accept the fact that
>>     the vacuum possesses activity which can be characterized as a
>>     type of energy density that is not observable (no rest mass or
>>     momentum).  This is no different that accepting that QED
>>     calculations should be believed when they assume vacuum energy or
>>     that zero point energy really exists.
>>
>>     *Albrecht*, perhaps I have come on too strong, but I have decided
>>     to take a firmer stand.  You just happen to be the first person
>>     that I contrast to my model.  I am actually happy to discuss the
>>     scientific details in a less confrontational way.  I just wanted
>>     to make an initial point.
>>
>>     John M.
>>
>>     *From:*General
>>     [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>     *On Behalf Of *Dr. Albrecht Giese
>>     *Sent:* Friday, September 11, 2015 9:52 AM
>>     *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
>>     <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [General] research papers
>>
>>     Dear John Macken,
>>
>>     I would like to answer a specific topic in your mail below. You
>>     write "... would have particular relevance to the concept that
>>     the Higgs field is needed to give inertia to fermions".
>>
>>     We should not overlook that even mainstream physicists working on
>>     elementary particles admit that the Higgs theory is not able to
>>     explain inertia.  I give you as a reference:
>>
>>     >Steven D. Brass, The cosmological constant puzzle, Journal of Physics G, Nuclear and Particle
>>     Physics 38, 4(2011) 43201< ,
>>
>>     which has the result that the Higgs field, which causes inertia
>>     according to the theory, is by at least 56 orders of magnitude
>>     too small to explain the mass of the elementary particles.
>>     (Another weakness is the fact that the Higgs theory does not tell
>>     us the mass of any elementary particle even if all other
>>     parameters are known.)
>>
>>     As you may remember, in our meeting I have presented a model
>>     explaining inertia which does not only work as a general idea but
>>     provides very precise results for the mass of leptons. The mass
>>     is classically deduced from the size of a particle.  It also
>>     explains the mass of quarks, but here the verification is more
>>     difficult, due to the lack of measurements. In addition I have
>>     shown that the model also explains the (dynamic) mass of photons,
>>     if the size of a photon is related to its wavelength.
>>
>>     You may find details in the proceedings of our San Diego meeting,
>>     but also on the following web sites:
>>
>>     www.ag-physics.org/rmass <http://www.ag-physics.org/rmass>
>>     www.ag-physics.org/electron <http://www.ag-physics.org/electron> .
>>
>>     You may also find the sites by Google search entering the string
>>     "origin of mass". You will find it on position 1 or 2 of the
>>     list, where it has constantly been during the past 12 years.
>>
>>     If you have any questions about it, please ask me. I will be
>>     happy about any discussion.
>>
>>     With best regards
>>     Albrecht Giese
>>
>>
>>     Am 04.09.2015 um 18:40 schrieb John Macken:
>>
>>         Martin,
>>
>>         I wanted to remind you that I think that you should update
>>         your article “Light Is Heavy” to include the mathematical
>>         proof that confined light has exactly the same inertia as
>>         particles with equal energy. Accelerating a reflecting box
>>         causes different photon pressure which results in a net
>>         inertial force.  I already reference your Light Is Heavy
>>         article in my book, but expanding the article would be even
>>         better. An expanded article would have particular relevance
>>         to the concept that the Higgs field is needed to give inertia
>>         to fermions. The Higgs field is not needed to give inertia to
>>         confined light.  Furthermore, confined light exerts exactly
>>         the correct inertia and kinetic energy, even at relativistic
>>         conditions.  I have not seen a proof that the Higgs field
>>         gives exactly the correct amount of inertia or kinetic energy
>>         to fermions.  Any particle model that includes either a
>>         confined photon or confined waves in spacetime propagating at
>>         the speed of light gets inertia and kinetic energy from the
>>         same principles as confined light in a reflecting box.
>>
>>         John M.
>>
>>         *From:* General
>>         [mailto:general-bounces+john=macken.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
>>         *On Behalf Of *Mark, Martin van der
>>         *Sent:* Friday, September 04, 2015 6:34 AM
>>         *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
>>         <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>         <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
>>         *Subject:* [General] research papers
>>
>>         Dear all,
>>
>>         My recent (and old) work can be found on Researchgate:
>>
>>         https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Van_der_Mark/publications
>>
>>         In particular you will find the most recent work:
>>
>>           * On the nature of “stuff” and the hierarchy of forces
>>           * Quantum mechanical probability current as electromagnetic
>>             4-current from topological EM fields
>>
>>         Very best regards,
>>
>>         Martin
>>
>>         Dr. Martin B. van der Mark
>>
>>         Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare
>>
>>         Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven
>>
>>         High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025)
>>
>>         Prof. Holstlaan 4
>>
>>         5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
>>
>>         Tel: +31 40 2747548
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         The information contained in this message may be confidential
>>         and legally protected under applicable law. The message is
>>         intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the
>>         intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,
>>         forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is
>>         strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the
>>         intended recipient, please contact the sender by return
>>         e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>
>>         If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de <mailto:phys at a-giese.de>
>>
>>         <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
>>         <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>>
>>         Click here to unsubscribe
>>
>>         </a>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Image removed by sender. Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>     	
>>
>>     Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>>     www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Image removed by sender. Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
>> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Avast logo <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> 	
>
> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150915/d4f6e0b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150915/d4f6e0b1/attachment.jpeg>


More information about the General mailing list